Bedford 203 Housing Development Fund Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831529155
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122529377
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,233,679
Expenses
$1,474,092
Assets
$917,042
Liabilities
$1,530,094

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES M DILL (TRUSTEE/TREASURER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MOLLY MATTIMORE (TRUSTEE/SECRETARY/DEP EXEC DIRECTOR): $198,533 total reported compensation
  • KRISTI CILENTI (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $194,424 total reported compensation
  • DAN DANAHER (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $191,301 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization operates permanent supportive and affordable housing.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides social services to the residents of the low-income supportive housing project known as the bedford. The project has 107 housing units and is situated at 211 east 203rd street, bronx, ny. The services are funded by a social service contract with the nyc department of health and mental hygiene. All admitted residents are required to meet hud's criteria for low income.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.67; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 52.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 55.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -38.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.